That is part of it. Extremely shallow depth of field (blurred foregrounds and backgrounds) are visually appealing in 2D, but pose problems in 3D.

Same not just with quick cuts, but any cuts. Your brain is not used one focal plane instantly replacing another one. That's why we subconsciously blink when we turn our heads -- it's to prevent that kind of junk data from ever making it to the brain.

The main issue is still convergence. Put your finger half way between your computer monitor and your face then focus on the monitor, then your finger. You'll feel your eyes cross as you focus and reconverge on a new target. Now think about that same thing happening on a 3D screen. The finger will appear to be half way between you and the monitor, but your eyes are still focused on the monitor. You now have an object that's converged on one plane, while your eyes are focused on a second. They never have to cross to focus on it.

This prevents you from ever getting truly lost in a 3D movie, because your brain spends the entire time doing double-duty to figure out where things are spatially, and never quite figuring it out.

I work on 3D movies for a living, and have worked on both post-converted films, end-to-end 3D animated movies, and films shot on Sony and Arri 3D rigs... and 3D is a shit gimmick. At the end of the day, you're always dealing with a focal plane that's in a different point in space than the 3D convergence, and it's going to upset your brain.

There are "better" 3D movies that are more tastefully and technically presented, but to your brain it's still wrong.

Also, from an inside perspective, 3D isn't just dying in the TV market. Looking forward to films slated for production in 2014, fewer films are being bidded out as 3D productions than you'd expect.

It can create a harmful climate, though, when the bullshit stories are more than a kit Corvette. For example, most of reddit probably believes, based on anonymous anecdotes and one or two actual news stories, that if you help a lost child, you're going to pedo-prison. The reality is that nothing bad will happen to you, but now you've got a legion of dudes who think the world is clamoring to arrest them for sex crimes. That doesn't really help anyone.

That's the thing, though, it's not a rational fear. The parent didn't bitch you out, you're not on the sex offender registry, everything was fine. And good on you for helping the kid. You did the right thing.

Also, video cameras were rare, and having one pointed at you made you feel like you were on TV. If you weren't alive back then it's hard to explain. You acted differently. No one had seen a reality program or a YouTube video. Time on a camera wasn't something you squandered.

The consumer has voted against the artist-direct model with their wallets. We begged for an artist-direct system where we were supporting bands instead of labels. So we got Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Brown Paper Tickets... basically exactly what we asked for. Then we almost completely ignored it in favor of major label acts.

It makes sense for artists to go with the side who's most likely to pay them. Unless you're a pre-established act, or one of the few total flukes, artist-direct is the worst way to make money as an artist.

It's hyped up a lot on the Internet, but in real life you're likely never to encounter this. I wave at kids in the shopping line, I take my niece to the playground, I helped a lost kid who was in my neighborhood and crying "mommy" and walking down the sidewalk... and all I ever get is smiles from parents, "what a cool uncle" comments, and a big thank you for helping the kid.

It's a mostly reasonable world out there, and I'm not going to pass by a child that needs help on the 0.0001% chance that something bad could come of it. I don't live in that world.

What happens if someone is earning a nice wage, has two children which they can easily afford, then find themselves disabled and unable to earn? Do they retroactively lose the entitlement to reproduce?